Oil Drilling in Alaska Wildlife Refuge

Senate backs exploitation of Alaskan wildlife refuge John Vidal, environment editor Friday March 18, 2005 The Guardian, UK It is described as the last great American wilderness and has been the battle ground between America's most powerful oil interests and environmentalists for more than two decades. But yesterday the giants of the energy industry were celebrating a significant victory and looking forward to the chance to move into one of the most lucrative oil fields left in the US, following the Senate's narrow 51-49 decision to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. On the day that oil hit a record high of $56.46 a barrel, the soaring price and US energy insecurity were blamed for the decision. But Americans were divided on whether the decision made economic or ecological sense. President George Bush said that exploiting oil in the Alaskan wilderness was good for security and the national economy. "This is a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books. In terms of world supply ... demand is outracing supply, and supplies are getting tight. This project will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day." But for the Democrats and ecologists, who have fought the oil lobby to keep the arctic wilderness as a symbol of pristine America almost since it was first protected in 1960 by President Dwight Eisenhower, it was an irreversible tragedy. "Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places, for a six month supply of oil 10 years from now?" asked Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the refuge's staunchest defenders. The oil is expected to be found on the northern Alaskan coastal plain, but drilling is not expected to start until 2007 at the earliest, taking 10 years to come fully on stream. The US Geological Survey estimates there could be anywhere between 5.6 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil there, with the most likely amount being 10.4 billion barrels. The US government expects $2.5bn in revenue from oil leases and taxes over the next 10 years, with production peaking at one million barrels a day by 2025. But opponents said yesterday that the decision would not solve US energy problems. A 10 billion barrel find, said Charles Clusen, Alaska project director of the Natural Resources Defence Council, would represent only about six months' supply of oil for the energy-voracious US economy which currently uses 20 million barrels a day. The oilfield is expected to be roughly the same size as those of Norway or Algeria. "It makes no sense to industrialise the few pristine wildlife areas left," said Mr Clusen. "The United States has only 3% of the world's proven oil reserves and we use 25% of the world's produced oil. Do the math. We could destroy every last wilderness area in the country, but we will never be able to drill our way to oil indepen dence. We have to wean ourselves off oil." Senator Maria Cantwell, who led the attack against drilling in the refuge, said the US should focus on conservation and on developing alternative and renewable forms of energy instead of depleting the nation's last known onshore oil reserves. "By simply encouraging proper tyre pressure on cars and trucks, the US could save more oil than the wildlife refuge could produce", she said. However, Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, argued that the refuge could provide enough fuel to "replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years". Backers of the drilling say there will be no damage to the environment because modern drilling methods are far less damaging. "There will not be any damage to the environment and that is a fact," said Senator Larry Craig of Idaho. But major oil developments at Prudhoe Bay, to the west of the arctic refuge, suggest damage is inevitable. The coastal oil belt there is marked by industrial sprawl, the building of thousands of miles of roads and pipelines, as well as air strips, drilling platforms and gravel mines. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold and nutrient-poor soils, any physical disturbance such as bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration or spills of oil and other toxic sub stances can scar the land for centuries. The gravest concern is for wildlife. Opponents say the area which has been opened up for oil exploration is the biological heart of the refuge and the impact will be devastating. The arctic refuge is home to 45 species of land and marine mammals, including polar bears, grizzly bears, black bear, musk ox and caribou, arctic foxes, wolverinesand snow geese. Millions of migratory birds use its coastal plain. Although oil developments will initially be limited to a small part of the coastal plain, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has said oil activity there risks "irreversible" population drops for migratory geese, which rely on lakes there. Yesterday, environmentalists had not given up. "The decision only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. Carol Browner, chair of the National Audubon Society, said: "There simply are some places that should be off limits to oil drilling and industrial development, and the arctic refuge is one of them. Since the days of Roosevelt, all Americans have shared a common ethic to protect our country's most beautiful places." Democrat presidential contender John Kerry was more succinct: "It's a sad day when the Senate sells off America's public lands to the highest bidder," he said.